Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jul;121(7):1414-1420.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.01.027. Epub 2014 Mar 27.

Intravitreal aflibercept injection for macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: two-year results from the COPERNICUS study.

Author information

Ophthalmic Consultants of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts.
Palmetto Retina Center, West Columbia, South Carolina.
Retina-Vitreous Associates Medical Group, Beverly Hills, California.
Retina Consultants of Houston, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, New York.
Bayer HealthCare, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Bayer HealthCare, Berlin, Germany; Klinik und Poliklinik fur Augenheilkunde, Universitatsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Bayer HealthCare, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology, Heinrich-Heine-Universitat, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address:

Erratum in

  • Ophthalmology. 2014 Nov;121(11):2293.



To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) for the treatment of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).


Randomized, double-masked, phase 3 trial.


A total of 188 patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO.


Patients received IAI 2 mg (IAI 2Q4) (n = 114) or sham injections (n = 74) every 4 weeks up to week 24. During weeks 24 to 52, patients from both arms were evaluated monthly and received IAI as needed, or pro re nata (PRN) (IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN). During weeks 52 to 100, patients were evaluated at least quarterly and received IAI PRN.


The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients who gained ≥ 15 letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to week 24. This study reports week 100 results.


The proportion of patients gaining ≥ 15 letters was 56.1% versus 12.3% (P<0.001) at week 24, 55.3% versus 30.1% (P<0.001) at week 52, and 49.1% versus 23.3% (P<0.001) at week 100 in the IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN groups, respectively. The mean change from baseline BCVA was also significantly higher in the IAI 2Q4 + PRN group compared with the sham + IAI PRN group at week 24 (+17.3 vs. -4.0 letters; P<0.001), week 52 (+16.2 vs. +3.8 letters; P<0.001), and week 100 (+13.0 vs. +1.5 letters; P<0.0001). The mean reduction from baseline in central retinal thickness was 457.2 versus 144.8 μm (P<0.001) at week 24, 413.0 versus 381.8 μm at week 52 (P = 0.546), and 390.0 versus 343.3 μm at week 100 (P = 0.366) in the IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN groups, respectively. The mean number (standard deviation) of PRN injections in the IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN groups was 2.7 ± 1.7 versus 3.9 ± 2.0 during weeks 24 to 52 and 3.3 ± 2.1 versus 2.9 ± 2.0 during weeks 52 to 100, respectively. The most frequent ocular serious adverse event from baseline to week 100 was vitreous hemorrhage (0.9% vs. 6.8% in the IAI 2Q4 + PRN and sham + IAI PRN groups, respectively).


The visual and anatomic improvements after fixed dosing through week 24 and PRN dosing with monthly monitoring from weeks 24 to 52 were diminished after continued PRN dosing, with a reduced monitoring frequency from weeks 52 to 100.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center